NDI-MCP-Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions filtering criteria and hints at optimization ('for best results'), it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences, with the first stating the purpose and key filters, and the second providing usage guidance. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a 1031 exchange tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits (due to no annotations) and output expectations. The high schema coverage helps, but more context on results format or limitations would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'max_price' and 'min_price' relate to exchange value and timeline, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or clarify relationships between parameters like 'min_cap_rate' and the 1031 context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Find deals suitable for a 1031 exchange') and resource ('income-producing properties'), with explicit criteria like clean structures, price bands, and lease profiles. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 1031 exchange suitability rather than general deal retrieval or analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for a 1031 exchange') and includes best practice guidance ('Pass the exchanger's target price range and timeline for best results'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.